Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[Jeff Lebowski]

Please show me where someone taught it was better to die than be raped.

Here are a few.

“Loss of virtue is too great a price to pay even for the preservation of ones life - better dead clean, than alive unclean. Many is faithful the Latter-day Saint parent who has sent a son or a daughter on a mission or otherwise out into the world with the direction: ‘I would rather have you come back in a pine box with your virtue than return alive without it.’”–Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (all editions), page 124.

” . . . Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation.”–President David O. McKay, quoted in THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS by Spencer W. Kimball

“…There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity — realizing that chastity is of more value than anything else in all the world.”–Heber J. Grant, quoted in THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS by Spencer W. Kimball

“Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a moe favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no Voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.”–Spencer W. Kimball, THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS

“The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure.” - Apostle Richard G. Scott “Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse,” General Conference, Ensign, May 1992

“Of course, a mature person who willingly consents to sexual relations must share responsibility for the act, even though the other participant was the aggressor. Persons who consciously invite sexual advances also have a share of responsibility for the behavior that follows. But persons who are truly forced into sexual relations are victims and are not guilty of any sexual sin.” - First Presidency Letter to General Authorities, Regional Representatives, and other priesthood leadership, 7 Feb. 1985

[ERCougar]

lol.
I love how we're getting into historical definitions of virtue and source checking.
stupid rape victims. why can't they educate themselves on nineteenth century English? and don't they ever verify sources?

[ERCougar]

Forgive me for being skeptical. It seems like half the stuff I read on here is from some third hand source that is unreliable. It is amazing to me how willing people that claim to be so intellectually superior to everyone else just accept everything that they read on the internet.

or from church leaders?

[Pheidippides]

He's clearly talking about more than just rape.

And that matters because?

[UVACoug]

I like this ridiculously insensitive gem from Richard G. Scott regarding rape victims, too. WTF?



https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/05/h...abuse?lang=eng

He's clearly talking about more than just rape.

[UVACoug]

You are so freaking clueless.

Miracle of Forgiveness, page 196:

Forgive me for being skeptical. It seems like half the stuff I read on here is from some third hand source that is unreliable. It is amazing to me how willing people that claim to be so intellectually superior to everyone else just accept everything that they read on the internet.

And it is convenient that people ignore the sentence immediately before: "There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation."

Now ... I disagree with what President Kimball is teaching here. I do not believe it is a sin for a woman to give in to a rapist in order to protect herself physically. It doesn't bother me in the slightest to say that. But, it is also very clear that President Kimball is not teaching that rape victims are sinners or less "virtuous" (in the good vs. bad sense) than non-rape victims. To suggest that he did teach that is intellectually dishonest.

I don't have any problem admitting when I disagree with something a leader of the Church taught. What I have a problem with is when people with agendas are intellectually dishonest about what said leaders actually taught (or what the plain meaning of the scriptures really is).

There are clearly plenty of people who dislike certain teachings of the Church (including teachings about sex), and it is clear that they let that agenda cloud their rationality on the subject. This is also true of this Elizabeth Smart story.

I have all the respect in the world for Elizabeth Smart and do not disagree with her for a second with regard to her comments about misguided teachers using bad object lessons to scare young girls into living the law of chastity. I am extremely impressed that she is willing to talk about something that is so often considered taboo.

I do have a HUGE problem, however, with people using what she said to make a political argument about abstinence-only eduction. Or to suggest that this object lesson was the reason why she did not run away from her captors in order to sensationalize it and get more attention. Based on everything I have read, Smart's comments were completely unrelated to abstinence only education and I don't believe she said anything about her experience not running away. As far as I can tell, this was completely the invention of Johanna Brooks (or some other reporter).

I like Johanna Brooks. I think she is a smart woman ... and while I don't always agree with her political agenda, I think she is good for the Church. I don't like the way she portrayed this Elizabeth Smart story because I think it completely misrepresents the point Smart was trying to make in order to forward an agenda that I'm not even sure Elizabeth Smart agrees with. I have no problem with anyone advocating against abstinence-only eduction. Just don't twist the words of someone like Elizabeth Smart to do it.

[CardiacCoug]

I like this ridiculously insensitive gem from Richard G. Scott regarding rape victims, too. WTF?

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/05/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng

[CardiacCoug]

Do you have a citation for that "quote"?

You are so freaking clueless.

Miracle of Forgiveness, page 196:

It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.

[UVACoug]

Elder Bednar quoted Moroni 9:9 in his talk just last month: What a totally insensitive and tone deaf verse to quote -- nobody should ever reference that verse again.

Only if you assume people are too illiterate to understand the English language.

[UVACoug]

"Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained..." That's Heber J. Grant. Not translated. Not ancient text.

When young women are taught that it is better to die defending themselves against rape than to surrender their virtue, how should they interpret that? This isn't about parsing the meanings of ancient text...it's about the message that's being taught about those ancient texts.

Please show me where someone taught it was better to die than be raped.

[UVACoug]

As usual, you have trotted out a red herring to make your dismissive assessment. What difference does it make if the wording is based on 19th century idioms/colloquialisms? That's not the point. The way it is written portrays a false and harmful idea. It would be nice to see that acknowledged and addressed somehow.

No it doesn't. That is absurd. Open up the damn dictionary. The words "chastity" and "virtue" are both synonyms for "virginity". The only reason why it would be harmful is if you ignore the secondary meaning of those words. The explanation given by Eddie makes complete sense, and is really the only reasonable interpretation to give to the scripture. If there are two possible meanings, and one is absurd ... then the other one is probably the correct one.

[UVACoug]

Except that the scripture doesn't say loss of innocence...it says loss of virtue, which means that when someone is raped they are no longer virtuous.

Except that isn't the only meaning of "virtue":

Virtue: "chastity; virginity: to lose one's virtue."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtue

[UVACoug]

I never gave it a lot of thought, never had the actual chewed gum/licked cupcake lesson, but definitely would have felt the same as Elizabeth Smart in her situation based on how chastity was presented to me growing up. That's because I got the Kimball quote about one being better off dying than having their virtue taken from them in a rape.

Do you have a citation for that "quote"?

[UVACoug]

I guess maybe I'm just naive or perhaps not as sensitive as some - but the Moroni verses don't bother me. I think it is in the perception and feel of how they are taught and applied, as I'm not stuck on the actual technical verbiage used. I never took those versus to mean that the gals assaulted by the Lamanites had sinned or were unclean in any way. I viewed it more along the lines of a loss of innocence (please don't be confused and believe that my intent is to say they are not innocent).

I think it is naive to think that something isn't taken from rape victims. I understand the difficulty in expressing/explaining what exactly that is. And I could see someone fumbling over words and being misunderstood in attempting to do so. But I tend to believe that very few people (if any) place any blame on the victim or believe them to be sinners or lacking virtue.

That is how most people not looking to pick nits would interpret it as well. The term "virtue" has always had more than one meaning and it is not uncommonly used to mean virginity.

[CardiacCoug]

Elder Bednar quoted Moroni 9:9 in his talk just last month: What a totally insensitive and tone deaf verse to quote -- nobody should ever reference that verse again.